In the AKM Yusuf case, the Tribunal was scheduled to hear the initial presentation of proposed charges against AKM Yusuf. The Defense objected and argued that they had not been given full access to the documents upon which the Prosecution intends to rely. The Tribunal decided it would review the documents and direct the Prosecution accordingly.

In the Salauddin Qader Chowdhury case, the Defense continued the cross-examination of the Investigation officer, Md Nurul Islam, Prosecution witness 41. Thereafter, the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until 9 June, 2013.

Chief Prosecutor vs. AKM YusufIn AKM Yusuf case, today was fixed for charge hearing. The Defense applied for adjournment and the Tribunal adjourned the proceedings of the case until16 June, 2013. The Defense also submitted before the Tribunal that they had only received 3 of the 10 volumes of documents which had been served by the Prosecution before the Tribunal. The Defense submitted that by serving all 10 of these volumes before the Tribunal, The Prosecution had shown its intention to rely upon these documents, and that Rule 18(4) states that the Prosecution shall supply the formal charge and copies of other documents upon which the Prosecution intends to rely to the Accused. The Prosecution replied that the volumes that they did not provide are case diary and investigation reports, and therefore the Defense should not get these documents. Thereafter, Tribunal decided that it would go through all of these documents, and that if it determined it necessary to provide certain of them to the Defense, the Tribunal would issue appropriate direction to the Prosecution.

Chief Prosecutor vs. Salauddin Qader ChowdhuryCross Examination of PW 41The Defense asked the witness about the freedom fighter’s commanders of the Rawzan, Kotoali, Pachlish, Rangunia and Hathazari areas of Chittagong. The witness answered that he interviewed them but did not keep the interviews on record. The Defense claimed that the witness did not keep their statements on record since they did not say anything incriminating the Accused. The witness replied that this is not true. The Defense then asked the witness whether he interviewed freedom fighter commander Dr Mahfuzur Rahman, Engineer Afsar Uddin, or Moulana Sayed. The witness replied that among them he only interviewed Dr Mahfuzur Rahman, but did not keep his statement on record. The Defense asked the witness whether he seized the book titled ‘Bangali r Jatiotabadi Shangram Muktizuddhe Chittagong,’ written by Dr Mahfuzur Rahman. The witness replied he saw this book but did not seize it. The Defense asked the witness whether he seized the book titled ‘Amar Ekattor,’ written by Dr Anisuzzaman. The witness replied that he also saw this book but did not seize it. The Defense claimed that the witness did not seize these two books regarding the Liberation War of 1971 in bad faith. The witness replied that it is not true.

The Defense asked the witness about the education of the Accused. The witness replied that the Accused passed the HSC Exam from Notre Dame College in 1968, and that from 1968 to 26 March 1971 the Accused was a student of Political Science at Dhaka University. The Defense claimed that the Accused studied in Pangab University from 1968 to 1971, and graduated from there. The witness denied that. The Defense asked the witness about the qualifications of the Accused. The witness answered that Chowdhury had graduated with incomplete honors. The Defense asked whether the witness collected any documents regarding that. The witness answered that he did not.

The Defense asked whether the witness knew that the Pakistani government dismissed some elected representatives of the National Council by a gazette notification on 20 September 1971. The witness replied that he could not recall. The Defense claimed that even if the Pakistani government dismissed some elected representatives of the National Council, the government did not dismiss Professor Khaled, the Awami League-nominated member of the National Council elected from Rawzan. The witness replied that he did not know. The Defense alleged that the government did not dismiss Professor Khaled because Yahya Khan had a conflict with Convention Muslim League. The witness replied that he did not know. The Defense asked the witness whether he seized any documents regarding or pictures of the meeting of Fazlul Qader Chowdhury, the father of the accused, with Yahya Khan. The witness answered that he did not. The Defense claimed that on 27 May 1971, the fund of the Convention Muslim League was seized and the assets of the party were frozen because Fazlul Qader Chowdhury was in support of the Liberation War. The witness replied that he did not know. The Defense claimed that the Accused was a neighbor of Bonghobandhu Seikh Mojibur Rahman. The witness replied that he did not know. The Defense asked the witness about a autobiography written by Banghobandhu Sheikh Mojibur Rahman, and claimed that Banghobandhu Sheikh Mojibur Rahman in his writing praised Fazlul Qader Chowdhury. The witness replied that he did not read it till now.

The Defense asked the witness about the Fortnightly Report that is contained in Exhibits 93 and 94, and which is the only government document recording the presence of the Accused in Chittagong in 1971. The report says that in September, the Accused was injured in a grenade attack in Chittagong. The witness replied that these two reports were made by MM Hasan, DIG of Police Special Branch (SB). The Defense asked the witness whether he interviewed any member of the DSB or SB offices, including MM Hasan, about these two reports. The witness replied that he did not. The Defense claimed that the witness did not seize these two documents for this case, and that the persons who did seize these two documents are not witness in the case. The witness admitted that. The Defense claimed that part (iii) of page 15 of Exhibit 94 is an electronic type-written report which is a fake, concocted report, and that is why the witness did not interview any member of the DSB office of Chittagong or SB office of Dhaka. The witness denied that. The Defense asked whether the witness had investigated and determined the license number of the motor vehicle which was allegedly attacked by hand grenade. The witness said that he was not available to recover that information, but that witnesses testified regarding the incident. The Defense asked the witness whether those other witnesses could remember the number of the motor vehicle. The witness said that they did not.